THE SCOPE AND DIFFICULTIES 

OF 

Civil Service Reform. 


AN ADDRESS 


Delivered at Kort Wayne, Indiana, 

BY 


CHARLES J. BONAPARTE. 


BEFOKL THL 

Civil Service Reform Association of Indiana, 

IVlAY 16tei, 1890. 


B A L T 1 M O R E : 

Printed by William K. loyle & Son. 
no E. Baltimore Street. 

1890. 


/ 






o 


THE SCOPE AND DIFFICULTIES 


OF 


Civil Service Reform. 


AN ADDRESS 


Delivered att Kort Wayne, Indiana, 


BY 



CHARLES 


BEFOLK THE 


Civil Service Reform Association of Indiana, 


May 16 th, 1890 . 


BALTIMORE: 

Printed by William K. Boyle & Son. 
no E. Baltimore Street. 

1890 . 




t 


T K fc'il 

. 37 ' 


SOURCF- UNKNOWN 




: ^• 




A 

> 

« 

4 



X 


f 


-V* • 1 









N 


f 


note:. 

Much of what I said in this paper, I had said in an ad¬ 
dress on ‘‘The Present Political Institutions of the United 
States,’^ delivered in June, 1884, before the Literary Socie¬ 
ties of St. John’s College, at Annapolis. I have found little 
to alter in my estimate as then expressed of our public men 
and of the causes which have made these what they are; in 
one respect, however, it is but fair to note a change. It is 
no longer as wholly true as it was then that “ the only dis¬ 
tinction between Eepublicans and Democrats is that the 
former hold some offices which the latter covet, and the 
latter hold some which the former covet.” Nor could I say 
now without qualihcation, as I said in 1884, “ whenever a 
serious divergence of views as to a measure of public inte¬ 
rest, as, for example, the currency or the tariff, becomes 
manifest within either of our great parties, both factions 
receive from its most influential leaders and organs an urgent 
appeal for ‘harmony until after the election.’ It is reason¬ 
able and creditable sometimes to waive or adjourn the set¬ 
tlement of minor points to secure unity of action upon mo¬ 
mentous issues. But it would puzzle one judging our present 
politics by those of other countries, or former times, to dis¬ 
cover the decisive question whose rightful solution demands 
that the forces of either party should be kept intact. For 
eight years at least there has been no practical living issue, 
even in National politics, upon which Eepublicans, as such, 
have been opposed to Democrats; on every question of im¬ 
portance members of each party have disagreed widely 
among themselves, and, to the observer supposed, it might 
appear that they were thus urged to sacrifice their opinions 
regarding matters of pressing concern to preserve a har¬ 
mony of expression as to matters of mere sentiment, relat¬ 
ing mainly to questions of the past confessedly settled 
beyond recall.” It may be maintained with some plausi¬ 
bility that Eepublicans, as such, now professedly favor re- 

1 


4 


taiuing and even increasing the protective features of the 
present tariff, adapting the rules of the House of Eepresen- 
tatives to the prompt transaction of public business deemed 
urgent by the majority for the time being, and some measure 
of Federal supervision over elections for Congressmen and 
Presidential electors; and that Democrats, as such, pro¬ 
fessedly demand changes in tlie tariff’, inclining, in some 
degree, towards free trade; great latitude for the minority 
of the House in obstructing partisan' legislation and full 
control of all elections by the several States. 1 believe 
these j)rofessions of both parties to be very holloAv, and 
their programmes, if sincere, are certainly vague and mea¬ 
gre, but it is unquestionable that some revival of real politi¬ 
cal life among us, however imperfect and factitious, has fol¬ 
lowed the application, however partial and half-hearted of 
business methods to the choice of ministerial officers. Since 
the time and thoughts of political leaders have not been 
wholly monopolized by questions of place-mongering, they 
have begun to pay, or, at least, to pretend to pay, some atten¬ 
tion to questions of public interest. Through establishing 
a show of Civil Service Eeform, we have obtained a show 
of true politics; to obtain politics worthy of a great nation 
and the participation of honorable men, we have only to 
establish genuine and thorough Civil Service Eeform. 

C. J. B. 


THE SCOPE AND DIFFICULTIES 


OF 

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 


In any enterprise it is a condition of success to know what 
we want: mistakes, disappointments and discouragement are 
inevitable if thh results really sought are imperfectly under¬ 
stood. I believe that many, perhaps most, Civil Service Ee- 
formers err in that they underestimate the magnitude of 
their undertaking; they recognize this to be the destruction 
of the ’-Spoils^’ system of politics, but they fail to appreciate 
how this system has become interwoven with almost every 
phase of our Xational life. Some of them said, probably a 
majority thought, when their agitation first took definite 
shape through the formation of local associations and of the 
LTational League that when a statute such as they wished 
had been enacted by Congress, their work would be virtually 
done; the law thus obtained would work automatically and 
its benefits be so obvious that similar legislation by States 
and municipalities would follow as a matter of course. I 
need not pause to point out their error; seven years of ex¬ 
perience have done this so clearly that no one, however pre¬ 
disposed to optimism, certainly no one living either in Indiana 
or in Maryland, can now believe that this law has [)ower 
(any more than an 3 ^ law which the wit of man ever devised) 
to work “automatically,” or that our politicians admire and 
would extend the effects of its practical working. . But that 
such should have been, as it unquestionably was, the ex¬ 
pectation of many earnest reformers proves them to have very 
inadequately appreciated how complete a revolution their 
success would work, not merely in the despatch of our public 
business, but in the entire machinery of our politics, proved 




6 


indeed that they failed to realize what are the political in- 
stitutions under which we live. 

This failure is neither so surprising nor so blameworthy as 
it might seem at first sight; even intelligent and well-in¬ 
formed Americans have some excuse for not knowing who 
are their true rulers. 

No doubt it is a trite saying that the English Constitution 
was not made but grew. We all know that agencies and 
customs, unmentioned in the written Law, gradually became 
there instruments of government and invariable rules for 
public men, so that, by a striking anomaly, the mutual re¬ 
lations of the law-making bodies are determined by a mere 
tacit understanding and general acquiescence, and the Con¬ 
stitution of the Country, which has been here solemnly de¬ 
clared ‘‘the Supreme Law of the Land,’’ does not there rise to 
the dignity of a law at all. But it is not so easy to realize that 
we also entrust the substance of political power to extra-legal 
forces, and only its form to those recognized in the statute- 
book; that here not less than in our Mother Country and not¬ 
withstanding our numerous and frequently varied written con¬ 
stitutions, political institutions of over-mastering weight and 
importance have grown up amongst us, of which no trace can 
be found in these and which, as in England, have reduced the 
nominal sovereign to a dignified non-entity. 

A ready illustration of this is at hand. It can hardly be 
doubted that the President of the United States for the term 
succeeding the present will be nominated at either the next 
Eepublican or the next Democratic National Convention. 
Their organization and proceedings, the characters, senti¬ 
ments, aims, desires, prejudices of the delegates chosen to 
form them, will be facts of the greatest weight in determin¬ 
ing who shall next occupy the White House. Yet a foreigner 
knowing us only through a study of our Constitution would 
not suspect this; he would find nothing in our laws suggest¬ 
ing the power or even the existence of either of these bodies, 
or the importance to the country of their selection and con¬ 
duct. On the contrary, he would attach consequence to the 
composition of a totally different body, one so shadowy in its 
powers, so mechanical in its duties, that most of us forget its 
very being. Of the millions of voters who cast their ballots 


1 


ill November, 1892, I doubt if one in a hundred will even 
read the names of the figure-heads printed on them as Elec¬ 
tors, much less reflect that the men so named, if elected, 
have the right conferred, and even the duty imposed, upon 
them by the Constitution of each one exercising his personal, 
unbiased judgment in recording his vote for President. Yet 
this independent judgment in the Electoral College was cer¬ 
tainly contemplated by the framers of our Constitution and 
was exercised, to a greater or less extent, in the earlier elec¬ 
tions held under it: since its adoption nominating conven¬ 
tions have developed as new organs in our body politic, and 
there has been what naturalists call a “correlated atrophy^’ 
of the organ whose functions they have usurped. 

To answer the question: By what institutions are we now 
practically governed? we must first understand its mean¬ 
ing. When we say that Kussia or Turkey is “governed’’ by 
the Czar or the Sultan, we do not mean that his will directly 
controls or his wishes immediately affect every act of the 
public administration: the most despotic monarch must act 
through agents, and the test of his dominion is not the ex¬ 
tent to which he retains or delegates his ])owers, but whether 
he remains the sole source of official life. The man or organ¬ 
ization that creates and destroys the depositaries of power 
is the true sovereign, however indirectly he or it may govern, 
and to know who are our present rulers, we must discover by 
whom are Presidents, and Governors, and Mayors, and Con¬ 
gressmen, and Assemblymen and Aldermen, made and un¬ 
made. 

The question thus stated, the answer is easy. The United 
States are now governed by two immense corporations, call¬ 
ing themselves respectively the Republican and the Demo¬ 
cratic parties, having each a general organization for 
National, and divisions and sub-divisions for State and Muni¬ 
cipal purposes, and whose activity extends to the remotest 
portions of our territory and to the humblest manifestations 
of our public life. Although they assume the name of 
“Parties,” the term misleads; for they differ essentially from 
political parties in all other enlightened countries, and from 
those known here before the present generation. Here 
formerly and elsewhere now, parties were and are organiza- 


8 


tious of men entertaining similar views on questions of public 
policy, and combining to obtain practical acceptance for their 
views. Of course, legislative and some executive offices were 
always and are everywhere the immediate prizes of political 
contests, for through their possession only can practical effect 
be given to the principles of the victorious party. Moreover 
in all times and in all countries unprincipled men will be 
found who mask schemes of self interest under an affectation 
of patriotism; and those placed in positions of public trust 
will sometimes abuse their patronage for partisan or personal 
advantage. But everywhere else, and, until these days here^ 
offices have been, avowedly, at least, a means only; the end 
of a party, the reason of its life, has been to promote or de¬ 
feat some measure more or less definite, of legislation or ad¬ 
ministration, and the use of ministerial offices to reward 
partisan services, has been, for all statesmen but those of 
our day and country, a form of bribery practised, no doubt, 
but never defended and but little, if at all, less odious than 
the simple purchase of votes or influence for money. 

But for our parties to obtain the principal executive offices, 
and through them those in their gift, is the whole end and 
reason of existence; far from wishing the offices to carry out 
a policy, they fear above all things to advocate an intelligible 
policy, lest it ma}^ cost them the offices. 

The question vastly exceeding any other in importance to 
our national parties, indeed the only question which truly 
interests them at all, is whether after the 4th of March, 1803, 
a Democratic President shall distribute many thousands of 
Federal offices to Democrats, or a Republican President shall 
reserve them for Republicans. As a National organization 
the one party has no other aim than to seek these offices, the 
other, no purpose but to keep them; for analogous reasons do 
they exist and contend in every State and division of a State 
throughout the Union. An American political party is kept 
up for purposes as strictly interested as a railroad or life in¬ 
surance company: the sentiments of its platform mean no 
more than the devotion to the public to be found in a pro¬ 
spectus of the former, or the longing to care for the widow 
and orphan professed in the circulars of the latter; they are 
advertisements and nothing more. The very men who pre- 


9 


pare them look with undisguised contempt upon any one who 
takes them more seriously: a politician of to-day can hardly 
conceive of a party with other ends than to secure support 
at public expense for as many as possible of its members: 
that citizens should combine for any other purpose, seems to 
him absurd and visionary. 

The whole i)uri)ose of our parties, being to obtain and dis¬ 
tribute offices, they are correspondingly organized. Their 
leaders are prominent office-holders or those who will be¬ 
come such if the party succeed; their active members are 
the incumbents of petty offices, or such as hope to dispossess 
them; their revenues are derived from assessments on official 
salaries supplemented by the investments of capitalists hav¬ 
ing contracts to obtain or taxes to evade. Eveiy public office, 
however responsible, or however humble, that of Chief Jus¬ 
tice of the Supreme Court or that of a village lamplighter, 
is for our politicans simply current coin to excite and re¬ 
ward partisan activit}*. An association of this character pos¬ 
sesses a permanence and cohesion wiiich no ordinary party 
could ac(iuire; such a party dissolves when the end for which 
it was formed has been attained or become clearly nnattain- 
able; and one result or the other will ordinarily be reached 
before many years. J>ut as the object of these associations 
is one never to be irrevocably effected, there is no reason 
why they should not endure for all time, So long as the 
only distinction between Itepiiblicans and Democrats is that 
the former hold some offices which the latter covet, and the 
latter hold some which the former covet, the present par¬ 
ties may last as long as we allow offices to be bestowed for 
party reasons. There will never come a time, while both 
human nature and our institutions remain the same, when 
those who wish for places need finally despair of ousting 
those who have them. 

Moreover, although no ruling [lower can wholly escajie the 
induence of [lublic opinion, our [lolitical coi'iiorations are 
singularly free from it. llow^ever uupoimlar, outside of, or 
even within, the [lart^Mirganization, may be the candidate 
finally chosen, he can count upon tlie regular party workers. 
Politicians supiiort him, not from respect or affection, but 
from self-interest; he may not be the man they would like 


10 


to see in the place to which he aspires, but,-if he is the reg¬ 
ular nominee, no one else can do the work they must have 
done; only he will be bound to put or keej) them in office 
and keep or put their opponents out. Formerly a common¬ 
place but effective check was imposed on parties by the 
necessity of api)ealing to the public for their cani))aign funds; 
the popularity of their nominee was fairly measured by the 
readiness and liberality with which his wealthier supporters 
subscribed, and a candidate thoroughly distasteful to the 
more intelligent classes of the community must have been 
rich enough to dispense with pecuniary assistance But 
political managers have no longer this fear before their 
eyes; office holders and office seekers subscribe with what 
would be amazing liberality, considering their means, were 
the sums given really gifts: they are, however, simply invest¬ 
ments. The givers know that if their party goes or stays 
out, they all certainly go or stay out of public employment 
with it: if it stays or comes in, each of them has the chance, 
at least, to stay or come in also. The worst man of their 
party .may^ give or leave them the means of earning tlieir 
living: the best man of the other, is sure to do neither. 

These two powerful corporations have reduced the legal 
sovereign of the country, that is to say, the people of the 
United States, to a condition of majestic impotence, closely 
resembling that of the titular ruler of Great Britain. Queen 
Victoria has nominally all and more than the powers of 
Queen Elizabeth; but she can exercise these powers only 
through her ministers, and these are chosen virtually, though 
indirectly, by the House of Commons. She is treated with 
such outward deference as to conceal the contrast between 
her legal and her practical authority, and she is not quite 
a nullity in the Government; she would be held justified 
in refusing a minister on reasonable grounds offensive to 
her. But the ruler of England is the leader of the Com¬ 
mons; sustained by them, he owes the Crown a little for¬ 
mality of manner and a little hypocrisy of language. So 
the American people has never in form abdicated its sover¬ 
eignty, but its nominal servants are the creatures of one or 
other political party. It may be sated with fulsome adula¬ 
tion, but it retains only the shadow of power. The mass of 


11 


our citizens come to the polls, not to choose their rulers, but at 
most, to record a preference between nominees of two usurp¬ 
ing monopolies, selected by each to do its own work, and 
with scarcely a thought of their fitness for the work of the 
people. Only in those extreme cases, when the glaring, 
monstrous impropriety of candidacies makes them insults 
to the dignity of the nation, will the latter sometimes really 
exercise its right of choice. As a rule every successful can¬ 
didate is conscious that he owes his position, not to the con¬ 
fidence of his fellow-citizens, but to the favor of an office-seek¬ 
ing organization, that to it he must above all give satisfac¬ 
tion as a place-jobber, and may then safely devote to his 
legitimate duties the leavings of his time and the dregs of 
his energy. 

What I have said may be met by the objection, that the 
two great national parties taken together embrace., for prac¬ 
tical purposes, the entire electorate^ therefore the one suc¬ 
cessful at the polls is shown to include a majority of the 
voters, and their elaborate organization amounts, after all, 
only to a mechanism whereby this majority first ascertains its 
own will, then imposes it upon the people. This view is plausi¬ 
ble and is adoi)ted, more or less consciously, by most of those 
who think, write or speak concerning our institutions; but re¬ 
flection will show it to be radically erroneous; for, although 
every man who votes the Eepublican or the Democratic ticket 
may be called pro hac vice a member of the Eepublican or 
Democratic party, he is not such in a sense which ensures 
that the party’s candidate has received his actual or con- 
structiv^e assent. The established practice of both parties 
is to choose their candidates, directly or indirectly, through 
what are called ‘^primaries:” in other words, elections at 
which the right of suffrage is confined to those more or less 
expressly pledged to support the nominee of the party. The 
governing bodies of either party are chosen in the same 
manner; and, regarding our parties as corporations, even 
their nominal membership must be confined to those attend¬ 
ing the primaries, by no means all, or even a majority of 
those who usually vote their respective tickets. 



12 


But this is not all: our great industrial corporations are 
virtually governed by a very small fraction of their nominal 
membership. As an illustration, the Pennsylvania Kailroad 
Company is technically composed of every owner of its stock; 
but when we hear that it promotes this scheme or dis¬ 
courages that, does any one suppose that all, or a majority, 
or even a considerable number of its stockholders have 
ever been consulted about the matter? For purposes of 
action and influence the Pennsylvania Eailroad means cer¬ 
tain well known gentlemen whose names can be told on the 
fingers of one hand. In like manner our vast political cor¬ 
porations are ruled each by a small inner circle of men whose 
stake in its operations is sufficient to have them make its 
control the business of their lives. When the ordinary voter 
enters the primary, he finds invariably his choice narrowed 
to two or three candidates. How these have come to be all 
that have the slightest chance of election, he does not know: 
the result has been brought about by influences in which he 
has had no part, and whose nature he generally very imper¬ 
fectly understands; but he knows, or will soon learn by expe¬ 
rience, that unless his vote is cast for some one of these two 
or three, it will have no more bearing on the nomination 
than if he had staid at home. The nominee of a primary 
in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred owes his success to a 
previous nomination by some man or clique of men who make 
politics a trade: he is the creature of a “ boss ” or a “ ring. 
There is nothing really mysterious in this; some one must 
make it his business to control any association, or to direct 
any corporate work; and the more unwieldly the assem¬ 
blage the more imperative is the need of expert guid¬ 
ance. Professional politicians are indis|)ensable in any pop¬ 
ular government: we are peculiar only in having a hundred¬ 
fold more of them, and those of a vastly lower type than 
other nations. We have in our midst several hundred thou¬ 
sand persons who obtain their livelihood by influencing the 
nomination of party candidates; we may not admire their 
aims or their methods, but no one can deny or need wonder 
that they succeed. Our laws are made and enforced by men 
who owe their official life to our professional politicians; these 
constitute for practical purposes, the two great corporations 


13 


we call parties, and if tlie source of power is the true sover¬ 
eign, the American people has virtuall^^ abdicated in favor of 
this particular class of its citizens. As formerly in Venice, 
an Oligarchy has grown up insensibly among us, and its 
rule is such as should be expected from the characteristics 
of the ruling class. 

A glance at these will repay our attention. The typical 
American politician earns his living by holding a ])ublic 
office (usually of subordinate importance and purely minis¬ 
terial functions) in return for past or expected party work. 
He is liable at any moment to be thrown out of employment 
for no other fault than being less useful to his party, or fac¬ 
tion, or special patron than some one else who wants his 
place, and his chance of promotion depends on his ability 
to supplant in like manner some body else; in no legitimate 
way can he ensure himself and his family a continued sub¬ 
sistence, much less make a provision for the future: that he 
should be usually dishonest is a logical sequence of his con¬ 
ditions of life. He passes his time in an atmosphere of in¬ 
trigue and dissimulation, concealing or exaggerating his sen¬ 
timents, amplifying his importance, striving to arouse hopes 
and fears he knows to be groundless, and to gain a confi¬ 
dence he will be strongly tempted to abuse: it is therefore a 
law of his being to deceive in words and actions. He is 
regarded by the community’ and especially by the classes 
who usually fix its standards of thought and conduct, much 
as usurers were in the Middle Ages, feared and occasionally 
courted for their power, but hated and despised. Although 
fortunes are no doubt made in it, imlitics regarded as a way 
to make money, is a poor trade: the proportion of really pros¬ 
perous politicians is very small compared with the vast num¬ 
ber for whom a needy and anxious life ends in a dishonored 
and miserable old age. It has consequently few attractions for 
men of character and ability', and such men, with rare excep¬ 
tions, shun it: it is recruited from the failures and outcasts 
of all honorable professions, those too dull, indolent or vicious 
to hold their own in any field of worthy competition. Its 
lowest stratum is made up in no small measure of habitual 
criminals: we may truly say that our Botany Bay is the polit- 


14 


ical arena; we rel'orin, or further debaucli, our convicts by 
making’ them our rulers. 

Among so many thousands a certain number of men of 
ability will, of course, be found, but I believe the impres¬ 
sion that politicians are generally acute and ingenious 
though untrustworthy, is wholly groundless; the vast ma¬ 
jority of them are men of the most moderate natural abili¬ 
ties, and the most limited acquirements. Your President 
has on several occasions pointed out very clearly that the 
relations between the prominent and ordinary members of 
the calling resemble those between the robber barons and 
their men at-arms: the “bosses’^ are noted for skill in ob¬ 
taining plunder and liberality in its distribution among their 
followers; while the latter believe in their patron’s star, 
that is to say, feel confidence in his continued ability to find 
them places, they adhere to him with unscrupulous fidelity, 
but he will be deserted in an instant if another proves, or is 
thought, better able to reward effective service at the peo¬ 
ple’s cost. 

With little exaggeration it may be said that we have made 
our rulers that class of the community which is universally 
and unhesitatingly pronounced the most unworthy of confi¬ 
dence in auy of the relations of private life: it is difficult to 
find a term to correctly represent this unique type of govern¬ 
ment: I have suggested for it “ kakistocracy ” at the risk 
of a charge of pedantry. That the public business is car¬ 
ried on at all tolerably under it, and that the country’s pros¬ 
perity is unchecked, forcibly illustrates the immense advan¬ 
tages of our national position : to some extent, however, 
it is due to certain characteristics of our politicians, which 
in some measure neutralize their more baneful qualities. 
They are greedy and shameless, but seldom bold, and cow¬ 
ardice with the bulk of them is some substitute for con¬ 
science. I have alluded to the comparatively small influence 
considering the perfect freedom of speech and great intel¬ 
lectual activity of our people, exerted by the sentiment of 
the educated aud reflecting classes on the administration, 
but, devoid as these classes are of direct political power, it 
argues great timidity in our politicians that public opinion 
has any weight with them whatever: that they are ever 


15 


bullied or scolded into temporarily decent behavior. More¬ 
over, a thoroughly corrupt and self-seeking class is by nature 
conservative. The American politician has in his mind no 
dangerously vague visions of general improvement for man¬ 
kind ; he has the perfectly definite and common-place inten¬ 
tion to advance his own interest, and no mirage of the imagi¬ 
nation lures him into perilous paths in this pursuit. He is 
not naturally a demagogue; when he attempts the role, he is 
clumsy and unsuccessful, because transparently insincere. 
To inflame and play on passions and prejudices of class or 
race or creed is, in truth, greater work than he is fit for; the 
practice of vulgar frauds and pettj^ intrigues does not train 
men to be real popular leaders in mischief. The reflection 
that our tyrants are too contemptible to oppress us, may not 
tend to our self complacency, but the fact does much to 
make their yoke endurable. 

Through the reform we advocate and not otherwise that 
yoke will be thrown off: thus and thus only will the country 
be freed from the domination of its most degraded and dan¬ 
gerous class and be made worthy of its greatness and its past. 
The remedy is right before us. i<o one can lail to find who 
troubles himself to seek it or hesitate to apply it if he 
recognize the gravity of the evil. The nation has made its 
Civil Service a breeding place for innumerable petty para¬ 
sites and these poison its political life with their noisome 
presence : restore the service to its proper functions and 
they will die out like the antediluvian animals for want of 
an enyironment in which the 3 ' can live. But precisely be¬ 
cause the effects of the reform will be so far reaching and 
so beneficent it encounters the implacable hostility of all pro¬ 
fessional politicians. The thorough going practical applica¬ 
tion of its principles to the conduct of public business would 
make them starve or change their calling, and neither pros¬ 
pect is pleasant. 

“No thief ere felt the halter draw 

With good opinion of the law.’’ 

And our‘‘statesmen’^ are no exception to this general rule 
of their kind. Nor must we disguise from ourselves that 
professional politicians are not its only enemies. In hisspeech 


16 


at Pittsburg Mr. Clarkson recently predicted tliatif the^^claiin 
of the Mugwump” that the ])eople favored Civil Service Reform 
could be “submitted to the people themselves” it “would be 
rejected by ten millions of votes.” Mr. Clarkson displays 
at least one mark of a prophet, the last election in Iowa 
shows that he has little honor in his own country, neverthe¬ 
less I consider him very ill qualified to predict what would 
or would not happen in the contingency suggested; but I 
have no doubt that a good many votes would be cast against 
“the claim of the Mugwump”,.or, in other words, against 
honesty and morality in public life, by people who would be 
secretly ashamed of themselves for doing so. It is not that 
they are misled by the arguments or wretched apologies for 
arguments that have been used against Civil Service Reform; 
had any man, sincerely desiring the country’s good been led 
by these to doubt its wisdom, the practical working of the 
Pendleton bill must have dispelled his misgivings. Under it 
the public service has not been filled up with book-worms or 
valetudinarians, nor have letter carriers and custom house 
inspectors become brutal in their manners or lordly in their 
bearing towards the ordinary citizen. College graduates 
have not monopolized the .petty offices nor have we seen a 
peerage of departmental clerks created, or our liberties 
otherwise endangered by the introduction of Competitive 
examinations. What some politicians called the “English 
pension system,” possibly because it had nothing in the 
world to do with England and nothing in the world to do 
with pensions, has been established without cieating a 
bureaucracy or undermining the Constitution; in brief, all 
the silly pretexts and affected fears invented as excuses for 
resisting the reform have been proven groundless and absurd. 
But, as a matter of fact, the demonstration was needless; no 
one to whom any one would think for a moment of listening 
on such a topic really believed them; they were repeated it 
is true, by some who ought to have known and did know 
better, but such men used them only to blind their fellow 
citizens, perhaps to blind their own consciences, to the real 
motives of their hostility to reform. When it was practi¬ 
cally although only partially applied Civil Service Reform 


17 


produced none of the evils they pretended to expect from 
it, but as no one had expected these evils in fact, this 
proved only their own insincerity’ which needed no proof. 
Nor has the demonstration in anywise disarmed the hos¬ 
tility of its enemies: on the contrary it is because they 
understand it better that many persons like Civil Service 
Iteform less. They have learnt from i)ersonal experience 
that it may be a serious hindrance to obtaining public em¬ 
ployment for themselves or billeting relatives or friends 
or dependants ui)Ou the Government, and some who once 
saw its theoretical merits no longer think it “practical^’ or 
‘‘suited to our institutions.” 

The real stumbling block to reform is not ignorance, but 
the torpor of the national conscience. We do not feel our 
ignominy. The average American is so accustomed to 
having politicians reduce him to a choice between two 
almost equally distasteful candidates; to voting for one to 
show his disgust with the other, or staying at home and 
grumbling to show his disgust with both, that he looks on 
this impudent usurpation as a part of the order of nature: 
let him feel that his submission to il is unworthy of him¬ 
self, and a source of loss and i)eril to the commonwealth, 
and its overthrow is at hand. Let us then abjure the cow¬ 
ardly optimism which ignores evils it is too lazy to correct; 
the ostrich wisdom which hides from itself the enemy with 
which it fears to strive. No good or worthy^ thing was ever 
done through self-deception: to redeem our manhood, we 
must recognize our degradation. “You shall know the truth 
and the truth shall make you free.” We should expect and 
court the enmity of those who live by^ the abuses which for 
three generations have now grown with our growth and 
strengthened with our strength: what bad men cordially 
detest must contain in it some element of active good. It is 
well for Civil Service Iteform to be hated by Tammany Hall 
as it was well for England to be hated by Barere. We 
would spare Americans from being ashamed of their 
Government, would rescue the noblest work of our polity 
from its basest hands; would extirpate national vices which 
make us a political Sodom among Christian peoples: with 


18 


such a goal before us we can well fight on with a calm con¬ 
fidence that any apostacy, any temporary reverse, any seem¬ 
ing injustice of public opinion are but inevitable incidents 
of so momentous a struggle, but fitting preludes to so glori¬ 
ous a victory. 




W \ 







i 


• 1 . 




.VI I 


I • , 


>.• V 





■?*4 


'S*n* - 


OS' 





*^ ^ -<•...■ 


ki^r'- " ■"® 




r,‘:A 

^.■:.-’ 7 -ii?R:*‘:;,V?':S--'- 






'iZv 


«^ 





••' 


' *> ‘ » 


• ^v- • V -■'• ......rr. . ^jT/^ 

HPBSkP*''. V' Y 'u • < ’,.,*• .7• ■' ^•/3«glBiv.^ I* . 73 


!t v> 







■' ' ' 




='■- • ^ ^ fV- 

. 1^.' •■*>^■4^^-=:. 


I r 


' .•V^v:-;fp ■. ,;V 4 ^ ■;, :> 
■"^- -wpyir-t -'^!^k t'? 

v.'ii' ^ I ,.: ‘ ‘ ■ . ' ' 



iV 



% r 


a ‘V 




'V‘.'.-'lV,’«;v ■;, ■..;i;^, 

■' :<.'’Skr/jS 


• 1; 


' ' ’ * ^ ^ ‘i ’ fc* ( 

^ ‘ 'd 



(• 


^ 1 

•‘. '> 






- N-*’ :>' 

L- *. '»• 





- c 


'....»« ■>, 


» ► . • * L 

• .^‘l^ .k , »• < 

.<>/ *• • *’^ 4/j'' 

_ ij4r* i ' >ITS : * 

AC****' / 

; u- - 


- ‘ A :. ' ” • • 4‘J‘. ^ 

-r - .•^T.'-li .'; ^--5 

.. L'♦' •’^. ' ■ • "' 

*. ^r'.^saS . 

.::i$ 


\ livi . .’'AV • 

i 



• ri 




i?ta/ w;- 


- ‘-•" f • •* *- 7*.# 

'/< >>*' ■ i^ 

4J^l •^•, ■* V . |f" - ^i- j‘f A • 

,|V ’ 

?,,\y ' * 


'■//'«'■’■.' 'f V : ’K' 

; ■ ^ 

_#i. 

J ifc , ^ * 

V*'* '* ‘L 


f •«• 


« 

<* 

jt 

^.'r. K 


, ■ !S»jn4'jp»Ai.‘’ T' 

’ V.' ■ • * ^ ^r* 


jJa 

IV *< * ' * y ■ ■* 

M k.>^.,, >': LiiMi ^ 


I V' . )• ^ ' 

V ; ■' f ■’‘^ ^ 

I)V(-A*-V* *va'N f *' # ’,/V ,*■ rt:. 

fc|r 




^iiPM 















